TFBSshape: a motif database for DNA shape features of transcription factor binding sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transcription factor binding sites (TFBSs) are most commonly characterized by the nucleotide preferences at each position of the DNA target. Whereas these sequence motifs are quite accurate descriptions of DNA binding specificities of transcription factors (TFs), proteins recognize DNA as a three-dimensional object. DNA structural features refine the description of TF binding specificities and provide mechanistic insights into protein-DNA recognition. Existing motif databases contain extensive nucleotide sequences identified in binding experiments based on their selection by a TF. To utilize DNA shape information when analysing the DNA binding specificities of TFs, we developed a new tool, the TFBSshape database (available at http://rohslab.cmb.usc.edu/TFBSshape/), for calculating DNA structural features from nucleotide sequences provided by motif databases. The TFBSshape database can be used to generate heat maps and quantitative data for DNA structural features (i.e., minor groove width, roll, propeller twist and helix twist) for 739 TF datasets from 23 different species derived from the motif databases JASPAR and UniPROBE. As demonstrated for the basic helix-loop-helix and homeodomain TF families, our TFBSshape database can be used to compare, qualitatively and quantitatively, the DNA binding specificities of closely related TFs and, thus, uncover differential DNA binding specificities that are not apparent from nucleotide sequence alone.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.017 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".